Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm sorry Megan, but in my day women knew not read things that might have been written by stupid people. We knew very well that authors who seemed all smiley and nice in the headshot above their column might be waiting for the chance to drop an infuriating conclusion or a snide assertion once they'd won our trust. If you're going to just wantonly click on any old link you deserve everything you get. It's just common sense.
-
As simon g said, it comes down to the definition of cheating. I note that the sense recordari offers from a dictionary is one of 5 in that entry, and that some of the others require an element of fraud or deception.
I don't think the analogy with the criminal mismanagement of finance companies is at all apt. Investors were deceived and did not expect malfeasance, which behaviour attracts moral opprobrium from everyone.
Professional footballers, and their fans, accept and expect fouling, and effectively sign up for it when they choose to participate.
-
Ewen Gilmour, eh? Well, comedians have won in Reykjavik. I reckon the Best Party platform is quite easily adapted to Auckland.
-
Phil: just above this sentence, in tiny grey letters, is the word "Permalink." That's it.
-
[Colin Craig] would also promote referendums on major issues and be guided by the results
Always the mark of someone with no ideas who just wants to be in charge, under the guise of being the people's voice.
-
Speaking as one of those who might take Fane's routine a bit personally than other people...
... the coverage has been woeful. Who was being roasted at this event? Was it, as I suspect but can't find confirmed anywhere, a bunch of radio execs?
Danyl at the Dimpost notes:
But it sounds as if the comments about Jews are opinions he’s attributing to imaginary evil advertising executives, not himself. I could be wrong but it’s always tricky when you try and take offense at something a comedian says during a routine in which they might be in character.
Indeed. And if that were the case, I'd be more inclined to give him a pass. Reporting has been far from helpful here. I just had a bit a search via Google News, and oddly, I can't find a single quote from anyone who was there.
-
I'm glad to see a malevolent source actually outed
Outed? Hardly. Anderson's kept the weasel anonymous, so now they can safely shop their next tale to some more gullible journo. Personally, I'd've thought that a source who burned you with a false story would deserve public naming and shaming, but apparently not.
-
recordari: Asleep Style.
-
-
While I'm happy to admit that my example was somewhat extreme, I still believe that it's a perfectly valid illustration of what can and does happen when 'pure' research is conducted without ethical oversight.
But nobody is advocating research without ethical oversight. Surely we are discussing is the stringency of the oversight, and the nature of those ethics. Bringing up the case of no oversight and the terrible consequences is irrelevant, except as a rhetorical device. OOGA-BOOGA!